Talk:Hugo Black

Racial equality etc

The phrase "maintained his commitment to racial equality" is not POV. It is something which is true or false. Do you have an encyclopedic source that states that Black was not committed to racial equality in the 1960s? The general opinion is that he was. My main objection is that you are calling things POV which really are not, even though I think most of your edits when you called the earlier text POV are OK. The latest edit again added redundant material to the article, about Korematsu, that did not make too much sense in relation to Harper, and removed accurate material (these --> this) concerning his philosophy, the topic of this section. So I am (mainly) reverting, with a little modification. John Z 19:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly. The phrase "maintained his commitment to racial equality" is POV on several counts. First, it presumes that Black was "committed to racial equality" to begin with. That's a very dubious contention by any count for somebody who was a well known member of the KKK, and thus something that is POV to assert about Black. Perhaps in your _opinion_ he was "committed to racial equality" - but it's just that - an opinion. Others would look at the fact of his Klan membership, the Coyle trial, and other similar events and reach a very different conclusion. But let's assume for a moment you were right that Black was "committed to racial equality." The next question thus becomes "did he maintain that committment on the court?" Again, this is a POV assertion because there is considerable evidence that could go either way. On the one hand you have his vote in cases like Brown v. Board that are pro civil rights. On the other hand though there are cases like Korematsu (authored by Black), which is frequently compared to such other luminaries of "racial equality" as Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott. Your request that I demonstrate "that Black was not committed to racial equality" is a request to prove a negative, which is logically impossible and thus may be disregarded. I'm accordingly restoring the material on NPOV grounds and ask that you consider maintaining a more neutral sense of wording when editing this article in the future. Thanks. Rangerdude 05:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, I am not married to the phrase, its not mine, and I did not readd it - but do you honestly disagree that the general opinion is that Black was committed to racial equality in the 60's, which I weakened it to, and eliminates Korematsu? I could dig up such a phrase I am sure out of any biography of Black, I've read some, but don't happen to have one at hand. A (practically) universal opinion is not usually "a very dubious contention" nor POV. I didn't request you to prove a negative, just - out of curiosity - to provide a source that shared what apparently is your opinion, specifically concerning the 60s. If there are no encyclopedic sources sharing one's opinion, one runs the danger of inadvertently putting OR in also. Sure he was in the KKK. People change. The old joke about him, which should probably be in the article, is that "Hugo Black used to run around in white robes scaring black people. Now he runs around in black robes scaring white ones." I gave some other reasoning about flaws I saw in this edit; in general I just think you use the words POV too loosely - even when I think your edits are OK. These --> this makes little sense to me, as does repeating about Korematsu. I'll try to compromise, making these minor changes to your last edit. John Z 10:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem was not that it was weakened to the 1960's timeframe but that it was worded in such a way as to convey that Black maintained a committment to racial equality in the 1960's. This is POV because it assumes that he had a committment to racial equality before the 1960's as well that he was "maintaining," and as you know Black's civil rights history ESPECIALLY before the 1960's was very checkered. It's one thing to say that people change, but being a Klansman and author of a court opinion to imprison people just because they're Japanese are pretty big mistakes to overcome by any standard. Presenting Black as if he was some sort of hero and champion on civil rights when in fact his record - even on the court - is mixed at best trivializes those other sordid events in his career. I also don't see the basis for your objection to repeating Korematsu. It's only mentioned in the article twice with the edit and once without it. Korematsu is one of the most notable and infamous cases of the 20th century and arguably Black's most famous opinion. It's not as if the case's details are being restated in a redundancy. It's just being named in context of his decisions that are not seen as pro-civil rights. Rangerdude 15:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you should go back and read my edit that you are complaining about, and reverted, which I no longer put in the article, and which did not contain or imply "maintain" in any way. Thus your POV criticisms are misguided here at least, and as I said, you use the word too frequently. I think you greatly underappreciate the more important theoretical contribution of Black, his pushing of incorporation, which he basically and rightly imho won over the long haul, against quite a lot of criticism, much of it irrational and unjust (e.g. Fairman), and in the context of middle 20th century jurisprudence was a very major contribution to civil rights. Again, I think that this characterization, as well as him as more "liberal" than "conservative", as more pro than anti civil rights whatever these words mean is nothing but the general opinion, and opposing it should make one careful of doing original research. John Z 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Introduction - The Klan

Why is the Klan mentioned in Black's introduction? It seems like an attempt to persuade readers to adopt a particular stance before reading the whole of the issue. It was never much of an issue and while the controversy over it should be included in the article (as it is since it has its own section dedicated to it), it's unclear why the introductory material that cites the most noteworthy of information about Black would include this info except as a smear.

Black was known for being a Supreme Court Justice and his theories on the law that defied the traditional wisdom of the time. He's not known for being a Klan member. It would be like writing an introductory paragraph on President Bush that basically said (in more words): "President George W. Bush was the 43rd President of the United States. The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers and the Iraqi War were two major issues he faced during his Presidency. Some have accused him of doing cocaine when he was young." I can't see how the introductory here is any different. Sure, it's relevant, but it's not so important as to deserve to be in the introduction and the fact that it is gives the impression that someone is trying to persuade you to adopt their POV. --Jakob Huneycutt 17:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading the rest of the article, it looks as if someone just went through and tried to insert as many sentences about the KKK as possible. Sure, his alleged involvement in the KKK became an issue during his life, but this article is a bit dishonest in trying to portray everything in his life as having something to do with the KKK (meanwhile, his important contributions to 20th century law get buried at the bottom). In the grand scheme of things, the involvement in the KKK was very minor and all indications seem to suggest it was a politically calculated move that didn't really reflect much on his beliefs, especially considering he was one of the pioneers as far as civil rights issues went. --Jakob Huneycutt 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Klan is mentioned in the intro as it is a noteworthy and infamous event in Black's career. Nor is it simply "alleged" - Black's Klan membership was fully documented. It was also a major source of controversy during his own lifetime and caused a scandal after his supreme court nomination. Also, as the article documents, Black's committment to civil rights on the court was NOT as clear cut as some have suggested. He voted pro-civil rights on some cases but anti civil rights on others, such as Korematsu and the poll tax case. You may be a fan of Black, and that is fine, but NPOV dictates that we present Black with warts and all. Rangerdude 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the article is exactly that it lacks any shred of neutrality to it because of the insane amount of coverage to a minor controversy. Like I said, Black's membership in the KKK was an issue, but it was hardly like it predominated his career. Nor was it such a major issue that he was well known for it. It was a "controversy", one that was ultimately not ruinous to him and one that did not have that much of an affect on his career. Like I said, it would be like having an article about Bush and making sure to randomly insert mention of drug use and alcoholism every paragraph. Or an article about Clinton where someone randomly mentioned marital infidelity every paragraph. After all, we know Bush was an alcohol and we know Clinton cheated on his wife, so by your own logic, those articles should constantly mention those things in order to be NPOV, correct? --Jakob Huneycutt 13:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw, you might want to freshen up on Wikipedia policy on assuming good faith because I think your suggestion that I might be a "fan of Black" is borderline bad faith. NPOV dictates that facts about Black be presented. It does not dictate that we must give extensive overcoverage to a minor controversy in order to make it appear as if an issue dominated his entire life when the facts suggest otherwise. I have already stated the KKK controversy should be mentioned in the article; I don't think random insertions throughout the article attempting to imply a strong connection to the KKK should be in the article (comments such as, "Following his first marriage Black resumed his practice of law with an attorney who became head of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama."). Comments such as that seem random (especially given his law practice was mentioned at the end of the paragraph before). --Jakob Huneycutt 13:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jakob - Your assertion that the KKK stuff is a "minor controversy" is a POV in itself. Many people consider any politician's involvement whatsoever in the Ku Klux Klan to be a major controversy and Black was more than simply a member - he helped the group out during the Coyle murder trial by serving as their defense attorney. I would also add that Black's Klan affiliations were an issue in his political career from the early 1920's until his supreme court appointment in 1937 - hardly a "minor" one-time controversy in his career. I would also submit that your combative and hostile commentary are far more severe breaches of WP:FAITH than my statement "You may be a fan of Black, and that is fine." Also, if you believe the Klan stuff makes this article unbalanced, please take a moment to review Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, which states "An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." (emphasis added). Rangerdude 19:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just watched the PBS special on the SC last night. Maybe somebody wants to mention that if they saw it and edit articles here? Anyway, it treated the KKK thing as quite a significant controversy in Black's life. In fact, the radio address whereby Black explained himself was apparently the second most listened-to radio address ever up to that point, second only to the abdication of King Edward VIII of England. So that should be an indication that people did care about the issue quite a lot. ~Andy

Also, I noticed that the part of this article about the clan says it existed in "Alabama and a few Northern States." That implies that Alabama was the only Southern State which the KKK was in, which is obviously not true. Could someone change that? It would be more appropriate to say something like "Many Southern and a few Northern States." ~Andy

Ok, Andy here, finally registered. I'm changing this; "became a dominant force in Alabama politics as well as in several" to this; "became a dominant force in the politics of Alabama, as well as the politics of much of the rest of the South and several..." and then continuing on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Y2robylaw (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Hugo Black edits

I appreciate Lord E.'s hard work on the Hugo Black article, but his edits have created some serious problems. First, the ordering of Black's beliefs as relating to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights as the actually appear in the Bill of Rights is completely arbitrary. Black's civil rights record needs to be treated separately in the article. Frankly, the old structure, which treated the issues in a sort of chronological order (civil rights first, then incorporation, then free speech during the McCarthy era, his rejection of "right of privacy" in the 1960s, etc.) was superior because Black's emphasis, if not his actual views, changed over time and also because the new structure is utterly arbitrary. I disagree strongly with some sections where Lord E. attempts to describe Black's record as inconsistent, incidentally; I don't think that it is true that his lack of support for extending the Fourth Amendment or "right of privacy" renders his jurisprudence less absolute than he claimed. And I don't agree with many of Lord E.'s deletions of content; for example, Chambers v. Florida was the first indication that this ex-Klansman was not actually racially prejudiced on the bench. I am not going to keep playing revert games, however, so a response is necessary. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

I've responded on your talk page. Emsworth

Failed nomination

Because the comments I quote below caused the featured article nomination to fail (a nomination, I want to emphasize, in which I wasn't involved), they need to be dealt with before editing can proceed in earnest. Unfortunately, however, some of the objections to the nomination are simply wrong. Thus, I think it's important to tease out which of the objections are sensible and which miss the mark. The objections are in block quotes and my responses are labeled "response". Hydriotaphia 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:*Any article about Hugo Black which does not mention Gideon v. Wainwright is only pretending to be his biography, he carried the day on no more important case on SCOTUS.

• Response. Quite right. A discussion of Gideon should be added to the "Criminal procedure" subsection.

:*The discussion of federalism is incoherent because no one involved in writing the article understood the distinction between cases involving the reach of federal power, as in the Commerce Clause cases like Wickard, and cases involving federalism, the balance between federal and state power.

• Response. It's pretty silly to say there's some deep difference between "the reach of federal power" and "the balance between federal and state power." Why? Well, as the reach of federal power expands, that power will, under the Supremacy Clause, preempt state legislation that is directly or even obliquely contrary. Moreover, the expansion of federal power means the expansion of that power into "traditionally" state-run areas of law. Indeed, "the balance between federal and state power" is a concern that underlies all recent Commerce Clause cases. In Lopez, for instance, the majority struck down the gun-possession statute in part because it dealt with a subject that was traditionally within the purview of the states. This goes for Morrison, too.

:*The commentary on incorporation is often incorrect, since the Sixth Amendment has not been incorporated unless cases like Apodaca v. Oregon which differentiate constitutional limits on state and federal criminal procedure were reversed without being noticed by the legal community.

• Response. This objection is incoherently written, and I'm afraid I can't figure out what it's trying to say. Yes, the Sixth Amendment has not been incorporated jot-for-jot, as Apodaca shows. But it's wrong simply to say that "the Sixth Amendment has not been incorporated." Most of it, indeed almost all of it, has been incorporated (as Gideon shows). The right to a jury in criminal cases (Duncan v. Louisiana), the right to counsel (Gideon), the right to confront witnesses (Pointer v. Texas), the right to a speedy and public trial (Klopfer v. North Carolina)—all these provisions have been fully incorporated against the states.

:*The discussion of substantive due process is utterly inept and unsurprisingly cites no sources beyond quoting Black opinions on points they hardly support

• Response. I certainly wouldn't say it's "utterly inept." It could perhaps be longer, but it accurately summarizes what substantive due process is and what Black's basic opinion on that doctrine was. Sources outside his (and the Court's) opinions, while helpful, are certainly not essential; his opinions very clearly expound his take on substantive due process. I'm also at a loss to understand exactly why the objector thinks the discussion of substantive due process is inept. It would be useful if the comment were a bit more specific.

:* Most of the discussion of Black's jurisprudence is forbidden original research, no legal commentaries are cited and the references are almost all general biographies, not technical works, instead the authors give their own interpretations of Court decisions and Justices' opinions

• Response. Well, not really. If the discussion of Black's jurisprudence merely summarizes the clearly expressed views in Black's own opinions, that may be inadequate, but it is certainly not what the objector imperiously terms "forbidden original research." To put it differently, if the discussion of Black's jurisprudence is wanting, it is not because of "original research," but rather because the section only talks about Black's jurisprudence itself, and ignores scholarly views on that jurisprudence.

:* If "most members" of the Court rejected Black's view that defamation laws were unconstitutional for abridging "freedom of speech," how do the authors explain NY Times v Sullivan, where the Court gutted defamation laws as abridging freedoms of speech/press, Black's view generally shared, though most others not so absolutist as he was -- as in related areas.

• Response. This objection is spot on. This needs to be changed. What must be emphasized is that during the heyday of the Warren court, while the Court often agreed with Black in its judgment, it did so through a non-absolutist route.

:*The idea that Black and Harlan were ideological opponents is ungodly silly, they had philosophical differences but shared core values

• Response. Alas, it's this objection that's "ungodly silly." First, it's quite unclear what the objector means when he/she pronounces that Black and Harlan shared "core values"; a vaguer phrase is hard to imagine. What is clear, however, is that Black and Harlan did in fact rely on very different, and almost always opposing, modes of constitutional interpretation. While Black was an extreme textualist (famously carrying around the text of the Constitution at all times), Harlan used a much less text-bound method of interpretation that relied on, for example, a "flexible" notion of due process. And while Black was, due to his textualist commitments, quite willing to overrule past precedent, Harlan was not willing to do so; he, in contrast from Black, treated constitutional interpretation much like the common law—as something to which the doctrine of stare decisis is essential.

:*Black's contributions are discussed only to constitutional law, but he was influential in other important areas like antitrust law, which are ignored. Judge Magney

• Response. This is quite right, but from a historical point of view any justice's contributions to constitutional law are more important than his or her contributions to a field of statutory law. Constitutional law is, for obvious reasons, more foundational than statutory law. Moreover, while statutes can be changed, and are often changed, through simple congressional enactment, the Constitution must go through the process laid out in Article V before it can be amended. The objector's basic point still stands, however; if Black made important and lasting contributions to an area of federal law, whether constitutional or not, those contributions must be discussed.

Term length

In the second paragraph it states "The second longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, (after William O. Douglas)..." According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_Justices_by_time_in_office Black is the fourth longest serving Justice. (Anonymous User) June 3, 2006 Insert non-formatted text here

Incorporation

Hugo Black joined the decision Palko v. Connecticut that denied incorporation of protection against double jeopardy, so he later changed his mind and advocated incorporation of the entire Bill of Rights? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 14:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Klan - "lifetime membership"

I was just reading a new paper on the economics of the 1920s Klan by Steven Levitt and Roland G. Fryer Jr, Hatred and Profits: Getting Under the Hood of the Ku Klux Klan which mentions:

In Alabama, it [the Klan] ended the career of veteran Senator Oscar Underwood, whom it

denounced as the “Jew, jug, and Jesuit candidate,” and replaced him with Hugo Black, who

accepted an engraved life membership in the KKK (Morison 1980).

The Morison reference is to: Morison, Samuel, Commager, Henry, and Leuchtenburg, William. The Growth of the American Republic. 1980. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

I hesitate to include the "lifetime membership" bit in the article without having run down and reviewed that citation, which I know I won't have time to do. If anyone else has the time, have at it... Studerby 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1) This article needs better citations. I put appropriate tugs throughout it.

2) Wikilinks for non-existant articles (which are red) should be removed.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik 07:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be interested in this article I will delist it. Ruslik 08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Schlesinger

He is noted as the author of one of the references. There is a wiki link, but it leads to a disambiguation page, and I don't know if this is Jr. or Sr. This needs to be fixed. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

Jr. wrote it. Fixed in the article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

Wiki link to First Amendment of U.S. Constitution

I put it into the article at its first appearance in the body. There is a second appearance which also has a wiki link, and I am not sure whether it should be left there. Just calling the issue to your attention. I know that there are a lot of people who have worked on this article, and I am trying to be respectful of your viewpoints. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

"Citation Needed"

If any further uncited sentences are added to Black's article, I will personally remove them, as I have spent a lot of time citing everything to date. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

External link reads awkwardly

Works related to Works by Hugo Black at Wikisource 7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

Fixed Put it in different form. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

Bot-created subpage

A subpage at Hugo Lafayette Black/fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some minor points

With regard to Black's KKK membership, his role in the defense of a fellow Klansman for the murder of James Coyle would seem to warrant inclusion here.

The sidebar links to the University of Birmingham Medical School in the UK. Whatever medical school existed in Birmingham then likely has no contemporary successor, as the forerunner of the UAB School of Medicine was then located in Mobile.Moioci (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What is it that Black is most famous for?

This, from New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).:

In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.

— New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).

I would propose to include this short sentence somewhere in the article.
Picodoro (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Which I've done right now. Feel free to rb if my edit was excessively bold. Picodoro (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Originalism

This section needs work:

Thus, some have seen Black as an originalist. David Strauss, for example, hails him as "[t]he most influential originalist judge of the last hundred years."[51] Black insisted that judges rely on the intent of the Framers as well as the "plain meaning" of the Constitution's words and phrases (drawing on the history of the period) when deciding a case. But, unlike modern rightist originalists, Black called for judicial restraint not usually seen in Court decision-making. The justices of the Court would validate the supremacy of the legislature in public policy-making, unless the legislature was denying people constitutional freedoms. Black stated that the legislature "was fully clothed with the power to govern and to maintain order."[52]

The first sentence is a weasel (some have seen) which, although probably true, is thinly supported. Secondly, I can find no support for the notion that "Black insisted that judges rely on the intent of the Framers". As a textualist, his focus was on the plain meaning of the Constitutions words. One would assume that if he were an originalist he would object to references to intent as being unknowable and irrelevant. At the very least this assertion needs a cite. Then we come to this: "But, unlike modern rightist originalists, Black called for judicial restraint not usually seen in Court decision-making." Seriously unencyclopedic and reeks POV. It is also wrong. Judicial restraint, as the term was originally coined, refers to the notion that legitimate jurisprudence requires judges to stay within the confines of Marbury, i.e using the plain meaning of the Constitution to "say what the law is". Thus all originalists whether conservative or liberal are by definition advocates of judicial restraint. Recently the left has attempted to co-opt the term to mean blind adherence to precedent which has nothing to do with originalist/living constitutionalist argument.

The next sentence "The justices of the Court would validate the supremacy of the legislature in public policy-making, unless the legislature was denying people constitutional freedoms." is a non sequitur.

This whole section is without merit and should be rewritten or deleted.

edits regarding daniel dreiser dreisbach quote

for the sake of history, this has to do with this and surrounding edits

you all want to discuss this? my feeling right now is that the whole quote is dreiser quoting hamburger, not dreiser saying anything of his own, and that if we're going to discuss whether the quote belongs in the article, we ought to get the actual quote from hamburger and discuss that. dreiser didn't write a major book from harvard, he writes for the heritage foundation. i'm assuming hamburger is the one who published with harvard. let's move the discussion to hamburger away from dreiser maybe? we have no way of telling from this quote within a quote what weight the guy who writes for harvard puts on anything. maybe dreiser is just cherry-picking nasty stuff out of hamburger. not only that, but it seems to me from what i can reconstruct of dreiser's collage of hamburger, that much of that material doesn't belong in the first amendment section, since it doesn't have to do with *what* black thought about the 1st, but why he thought it. what bothers me about the inclusion of the material is that quoting per se at such length does seem to give undue weight compared to the rest of the material. i suppose that what i'd like to see is: the actual material from hamburger, cited to hamburger, described briefly rather than quoted at length. discuss? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I have a copy of Philip Hamburger's Separation of Church and State and would be happy to copy any necessary bits here for discussion (if they get long we can put them in collapsible sections or on a future deletable sub-page). Would you like to start with the pages cited by Dreisbach (pp. 423, 434, 462, 463)? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Erasing relevant sourced material because we don't like it is not allowed by NPOV rules. Daniel L. Dreisbach, by the way has two doctorates D.Phil. (Oxford University) and J.D. (University of Virginia), and is a Professor of Justice, Law, and Society at American University; He is the author of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002). that qualifies him as a RS, as is Hamburger, who has the endowed chair at Columbia Law School. If Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has a RS that disagrees with Dreisbach and Hamburger, he needs to produce it immediately. Rjensen (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

good lord, friend, there's no need to tell me i need to do anything immediately, or even eventually. i didn't erase anything at all from the article, and i neither like nor dislike the material. i just want to talk about it, ok? (by the way, the guy's name is dreisbach? it's listed in the reference as dreiser.) my personal feeling is that the material ought to be left in, but that we don't need to quote dreis* quoting hamburger because hamburger's the one talking. does that really seem so unreasonable? dreis* quoting hamburger seems to make dreis* a tertiary source in this context, as reliable a source as he himself may well be (and i don't think that i suggested that he wasn't). i won't be near a real library for a week-ish, but i'll get the book then, and if no one's done it before me, i'll read it and propose something to my liking. until then, why, i don't mind at all if the criticism section stays in, ok? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Dreisbach and Hamburger to a criticism section. It helps with the article flow while we discuss how/if the criticism can be done inline or should remain separate.

I think I share some concerns with alf.laylah.wa.laylah (is there an acceptable short version?) about using Dreisbach as a source for Hamburger. The claim that Justice Black knowingly and willfully based his decisions on anti-Catholic bigotry and fabricated Separation of Church and State as a means to that end should be attributed to specific sources. Like I said I have the Hamburger source so I'm sure we can be precise. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

call me what you like, alf? scheherazade? doesn't matter. more to the point, in dreisbach's snippets of hamburger's views, i don't see hamburger making a claim that black knowingly and willfully did stuff, but of course i won't know till i see the book. i would be quite happy with a summary of the criticism straight from hamburger, left in a separate section (which seems to be warranted by the additional christianity today source), and written in npov. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

we should stick with Dreisbach's summary because we have a RS saying what's relevant about Hamburger's article. If a Wiki editor did it some one would complain it's POV cherry picking. Rjensen (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

there's certainly no harm in proposing a version straight from hamburger here and seeing if we can agree on it, is there? maybe we can actually reach a consensus. if not, maybe we can include dreisbach's version of what hamburger's saying. maybe they're not going to be that different. in any case, it seems like a waste of time to worry about possible future complaints about an as-yet nonexistent paragraph. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Given Humburger is only quoted in Dreisbach's footnotes we should at least have a look. Shall I put the pages cited up as sub pages in my user space? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

i agree that we should have a look. i don't want to tell you what to do in your userspace, but i'm a little worried about putting four pages of someone's book on the open internet, even if only temporarily. i will certainly lay my hands on a copy soon. you want to look it over and write some kind of draft? if not, i'll do it when i get back to civilization (= places with libraries). also, i think i'd rather look over the whole book just to see the context of the four pages rather than taking dreisbach's (or anyone's) word for what's going on in them. on the other hand, if you do put up the pages, i will certainly look over them. your call. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Take your time--I've read Hamburger and agree with the summary by Dreisbach -- which summary constitutes a RS and is all that is needed to provide a critique of Black.Rjensen (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I can wait until you get a copy alf.laylah.wa.laylah. FYI: I think Google has the ebook for ~15usd. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've taken out the paragraph of nuttin-but-Dreisbach per UNDUE; kept the Criticism section, which currently has a bit sourced to a review of the book bit from Dreisbach on Christianity Today. While Christianity Today is generally considered a RS, that is within limitations, and their religious POV must not be ignored. It would be far better if any criticism were co-sourced to a secular RS. I do not have Humburger's work, nor am I particularly knowledgeable about Humburger. Dreisbach may well be notable enough to have an article written about him at some point, but he is not notable enough to warrant a full paragraph airing of his views on Black in Black's article, at least not until historians in general "rewrite the book" on Black following Dreisbach's views. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the scholars. Hamburger and Dreisbach are both leading scholars and RS. Dreisbach summarizing Hamburger's very strong attack on Black. Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what we have right now; I'd prefer a better sources or two and a bit of a rewrite (less quote, more summary) but until that happens I'm ok with the one brief para sourced to CT. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

we now have multiple sources on Black's anti-Catholicism. I have not found any RS that denies these charges--if there are some they should be included too. What happened is that Black supporters for 70+ years have said that the KKK issue is about blacks and argue (correctly) that the Justice was never anti-black and issues no racist opinions. The new scholarship says the Black was anti-Catholic and that shaped his key decisions. So far Black's defenders (if any) have not responded as far as I have seen. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually we have one source, Hamburger. Dreisbach is not new scolarship on Black...he just quotes Hamburger. The past 70 years of scholorship on Black is silent on how his "anti-catholicism" shaped his decisions because, if he was anti-catholic, it did not. Black has become a target of late (after Roe v. Wade) by those opposed to the seperation of church and state. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No we have numerous other people, like his chief biographer (Ball) who says Black was indeed anti-Catholic. Roe v Wade of course was four decades ago and is NOT the center of attention on the church-state issue. Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Black's two main biographers say he was actively anti-Catholic along with professors from Columbia, American U and Princeton. When multiple sources make the point then it's not "undue". Why not find a RS that defends Black? (answer: because none do so.) Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

my feeling is that this paragraph is starting to show undue weight towards black's anticatholic feelings. my feeling is also that the number of sources mentioning it doesn't justify citing each and every one. it's like the fact that thomas jefferson cut and pasted a bible together to bolster his deism. it's true, it's in every biography of jefferson ever written, and yet to write a huge long paragraph in the article on jefferson citing every possible source would clearly constitute giving undue weight to the issue. i think that it's possible that the same thing might be happening here, although, as i keep saying, i can't check for myself right now, although i will be able to soon. the issue is not "defending" black, here, but placing the appropriate amount of emphasis on the issue. it's obvious to me that if people are writing about black's negative feelings (hatred, distaste, whatever) towards catholics, it needs to go into the article, but it seems wildly inappropriate to list everyone who's ever mentioned it if they don't have anything new to say about it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah makes a good point. The cites were put there because one editor demanded more and more proof (he said: "I'd prefer a better sources or two" and "Actually we have one source, Hamburger"). The overall criticism is important because of the church-and-state decisions that Black was involved in, which are highly controversial to this day. Rjensen (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That was two editors, not one. I said "I'd prefer" - hardly demanding followed immediately by "I'm ok with the one brief para sourced to CT". The other editor you quote was ArtifexMayhem; he is correct. The CT source sucks mostly because its a review of the D book which quotes H. But like I said, I'm ok with it. I'd prefer a bit of a rewrite, but I'm ok with the one brief para with the one source. What I'm emphatically not ok with is you saying that is somehow me "demanding" more sources. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, scratch the term "demanding." Regarding "undue weight" -- that is a technical term in Wikipedia WP:UNDUE that means giving too much attention to a minority viewpoint. Black's anti-catholicism is a majority viewpoint, held by his main biographers and recent scholars. Do UNDUE does not apply. Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

i think that possibly the other editors mean, as i can see now that i did although i didn't say it clearly by any means, by "undue weight", not referring to the fact that black was anticatholic, but that his anticatholicism was a major influence on his church/state decisions. you are right that it is not a minority view that he was anticatholic, seeing as he was in the klan and stuff. res ipsa loquitur and so forth. the view that that caused his stance on church/state does in fact seem to me to be a minority viewpoint, although clearly one worthy of inclusion. also, i think it was three editors, because i also would like to see a rewrite, mainly because there seems to be no reason to feature quotes about what hamburger says about black when we can read hamburger and figure out for ourselves what he says about black. i will try to propose something here within the next few days unless someone beats me to it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Alf says that the role of anti-catholicism may be a minority view. Oh? who has the majority view? Wiki's job is to summarize what people like Hamburger says, and here we have a major scholar doing that summary. perhaps Alf can produce a better summary??? Rjensen (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

yes, maybe i can produce a better summary. it remains to be seen. the whole process by which wp is produced is editors writing summaries of what scholars have said. i don't see very much quoting of scholars on what scholars have said, although there is some. that kind of thing is possibly more appropriate for wikiquote. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please. Hamburger is not a "major" or "leading" scholar and while he might pass WP:RS his notability on Black is lacking. Sekulow is of course not WP:RS. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Undue rules

One editor is erasing solid information he calls "undue". He misunderstands the WP rules. "Undue" is a technical term meaning excessive weight to a minority viewpoint. (WP:Undue Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.) The viewpoint that Black was strongly anti-Catholic is affirmed by a majority of scholars and disputed hardly at all. Therefore it has to be given greater weight. If there are alternative viewpoints to the effect that Black's anticatholicism did not affect his decisions, they should be included. So far no editor has included any. Professors at a university or law school writing in their expertise are considered RS, even if an editor dislikes their opinions. Philip Hamburger holds an endowed chair at Columbia Law School, and before that an endowed chair at the U of Chicago Law School--that that is pretty distinguished in the world of legal scholarship. Jay Sekulow, has published a major book by a leading publisher Witnessing their faith: religious influence on Supreme Court justices and their Opinions (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006) which entitles him to RS status unless very strong evidence to the contrary is presented. His views accord with the Black biographers. ArtifexMayhem has no sources to back up his personal viewpoints, which are merely POV Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, oh my goodness. i don't think anyone's disputing that black was anti-catholic. i think that the question is, as i said above, whether his views on the separation of church and state were for the most part a result of his anticatholicism. this seems to me to be unprovable and therefore only subject to plausibility arguments. it may well be that there are plausible arguments to be made, and we should include a discussion of those to be sure, but since the position is hardly subject to hard proof, e.g. a letter from black saying "this decision will fuck up the catholics, ha ha!", it seems quite probable that scholars who found no evidence for the position and felt that it was implausible might just not mention it, rather than argue against it. this is often how historiography works in such plausibly arguable cases which are not subject to proof. thus there may not be a lot of sources who can balance the view, but that wouldn't mean that the view was generally accepted. anyway, i got the hamburger book yesterday, and am reading it now. i have to say that i personally am quite happy with killerchihuahua's version of things at this start of today's kerfuffle, but i may change my mind on further reading. (p.s., wp doesn't have many rules, they're more policies, and subject to revision themselves. i think that this is worth keeping in mind.) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We have to rely on published RS and if they are silent on an issue then it's hard to quote them. The attack by Hamburger is rather recent and I have seen no defenses of Black so far. Indeed some RS may soon be published that defends him, in which case that must be noticed. For that matter the consensus of scholarly debate might some day swing to the view that his intense anti-Catholicism did not influence his views on religious issues, but that has not started yet. We know he did campaign in 1926 by attacking Catholicism which will be hard to explain away. As for the summary of Hamburger, alf may indeed come up with a better one than that published by a law professor. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

look, wp doesn't rely on credentials, but on consensus, so it's no use trying to say that i'm not as qualified as a law professor. it's irrelevant to the discussion. we don't traffic in the Argumentum ad verecundiam. anyway, for all you know, i am a law professor. maybe we're all law professors. it's just not relevant. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

two sections for anticatholicism and for separation of c & s?

i propose that we create two new sections here, one for discussion of the kkk and anticatholicism section of the article, and one for discussion of the separation of church and state section. the discussion is getting too diffuse for me to follow otherwise. perhaps my fellow editors will join me in accepting this method? if not, well, we can keep on adding to other sections. i'm only creating one on the kkk and anticatholicism section of the article right this second, because that's the only one i have a comment on. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

KKK and anti-Catholicism

i believe that we ought to change this paragraph as i've indicated with strikethroughs to indicate deletions:

Scholars and biographers have recently examined Black's religious views. Kersch (2004) calls Black "staunchly anti-Catholic." Ball (1996) finds regarding the Klan that Black "sympathized with the group's economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs." Newman (1997) says he "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave numerous anti-Catholic speeches in his 1926 election campaign to KKK meetings across Alabama.

the reason i'd like to drop the kersch quote is that kersch is summarizing hamburger, and hamburger (p.424n77) says that he "draws substantially from the work of Howard Ball and especially Roger K. Newman". Thus Kersch citing Hamburger citing Newman and Ball doesn't add anything to the citations to Newman and Ball. Kersch is not an additional voice, independently noting that Black was anticatholic. Anyway, I don't think that anyone disputes that Black was anticatholic. Do any of the editors involved in this discussion dispute that? (I'd like to drop the years because they're redundant given the footnotes, and it bothers me aesthetically). — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

you can drop Kersch but note that is talking about Black's Court decisions and he agrees that Black's decision was influenced by anticatholicism. That lends weight to the point that it is a major or dominant interpretation. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

yes, but the whole paragraph of kersch that you're citing is referenced to the corresponding section of hamburger, so it's not an independent point of view. it's just another guy agreeing with hamburger's interpretation of newman and ball. whether or not kersch has independently come to the conclusion that black's decision was influenced by anticatholicism (and it doesn't seem to me that the cited paragraph says that he was), that's not relevant to the section on anticatholicism per se, but to the section on criticism, where i thought we were keeping the discussion of the genesis of black's views on separation of c & s in his anticatholicism. i will wait to see if some other editors want to weigh in before i do any editing at all. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree. my point is that Kersch is a RS who endorses Hamburger's analysis (Kirsch is writing about the Supreme Court decisions of the 1940s) . That enhances the legitimacy of the Hamburger thesis. Rjensen (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not disputing Black's anti-catholic history or his involvement with the KKK. The sources have been plain on that since before I was born (way before actually). The problem I see is one of WP:WEIGHT. Hamburger published in 2002 and has picked up little support for his conclusions on legal theory and support for his claim that the Court based its decision in Everson on Black's "virulent anti-Catholicism" is almost non-existent. That Hamburger gets a lot of praise for his research and is a well respected scholar gets him past WP:RS not WP:WEIGHT. Some sources...

• [1] Mark McGarvie. Review of Hamburger, Philip, Separation of Church and State. H-Law, H-Net Reviews. March, 2003.
• [2] Andrew Koppelman. Corruption of Religion and the Establishment Clause. William and Mary Law Review, 2009. (p. 1891)
• [3] Douglas Laycock. Religious Liberty, Vol. 1: Overviews and History. Emory University Studies in Law and Religion. 2010.

What Alf has right now looks good but the full quote in criticisms is WP:UNDUE. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

i agree that the current state of the criticisms section violates wp:undue. i'm sorry to be so slow about it, but if we could get a version of that section that mentions hamburger, preferably without quoting dreisbach, who's just quoting hamburger, and then use some of the sources ArtifexMayhem mentions to balance off hamburger's ideas (which don't actually seem to me to be well supported by evidence; he seems to be confusing correlation with causation, but anyway, not the issue) maybe we could then have a section we could agree on? also, since three of us think it's ok to drop kersch from the kkk section, i'll go ahead and do that. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

p.s. that koppleman article looks excellent after skimming. it's going to be quite helpful after reading, thanks! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the three items. #1 and #3 do not mention Hugo Black and are not relevant. (#1 by a graduate student is hostile to Hamburger, #3 by a senior scholar is favorable). #2 is more interesting. Koppelman does not disagree with Hamburger and he cites several reviews that support Hamburger. Koppelman's main point is that it was Black's Baptist beliefs that shaped his court decisions. Hamburger says it was a combination of Black's Baptist beliefs (which featured anticatholicism) and anti-catholicism derived from nativism (and KKK) that shaped Black's decisions. The factors overlap as Hamburger says (p 427( (most Klansmen were Baptists and drys, for example, and most ministers were in the kkk). Hamburger stresses that Black was the only politicians who spoke in churches (427) Koppelman is quite negative on Black from a slightly different, overlapping argument. Hamburger also makes another major point (424-6) that Black was very well known for defending a minister who murdered a Catholic priest, emphasizing Black before the jury "dwelt on the full range of anti-Catholic fears [p425]." Black won acquittal and became a statewide celebrity. Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark McGarvie (#1), not a graduate student btw, sheds some light on why Hamburger's argument is not shared in the scholarly community (emphasis mine)...

Hamburger's proof of his major thesis concerning anti-Catholicism is no more convincing than that offered in support of his premise. His "anti-Catholicism" argument appears in chapter 8, with proof limited to lengthy references to New York and a more general discussion of New England. To be sure, as Hamburger shows, the historical evidence of the latter half of the nineteenth century abounds with disparaging comments aimed at Catholics, but these alone do not persuade the reader that anti-Catholicism forced a reconsideration of the meaning of religious freedom. Hamburger further asserts that anti-Catholicism was so strong that it united not only Protestants of different denominations, but also racist nativists and polarized extremists, such as the Ku Klux Klan and liberal atheists. In this, Hamburger may be attempting an argument paralleling one made by Edmund S. Morgan to explain a different time and place: that antebellum white southerners defined "blackness" in such a way as to unite all non-black people, despite their great differences in wealth, attitudes, and beliefs, into a white citizenry that supported slavery.[5] And yet Morgan mounted massive proof of his historical actors' thoughts, motivations, and concerns to support his conclusion--all of which are lacking in Hamburger's study.

Hamburger asserts further that, by the 1930s, the public's new perception of religious liberty as including the separation of church and state forced itself upon a Supreme Court that acceded to the pervasive "culture of Americanism." He concludes that, in its expansive reading of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent states from legislating in matters of religion, the Court "drew upon a context that had little connection to the Fourteenth Amendment, that was as much cultural as it was legal, and that concerned religion more than race" (p. 439). The Court's adoption of bifurcated review was probably more a matter of political and social expediency than one of well-reasoned analysis of the Constitution. Yet Hamburger's summary of the Justices' thought processes renders them mere puppets of public opinion. This view of the Justices pales by comparison with that offered in G. Edward White's The Constitution and the New Deal, which provides a thorough and enlightening discussion of this important and controversial period of American legal and constitutional history.[6] Once again, Hamburger's assertion that the federal courts imposed a doctrine of separation of church and state on the states in the twentieth century misses the important state-by-state process of religious disestablishment that occurred from 1776 to 1833.

- Mark McGarvie (Adjunct Professor of History, University of Richmond, and Golieb Fellow in Legal History, New York University School of Law, 2001-2002)

All three of these sources speak extensively on the anti-Catholicism of the time, Laycock does mention Black, and its relationship with the Court's decisions on church and state. They do not support Hamburger's claim that separation of church and state is a figment of Black's anti-Catholicism but rather is found in the Bill of Rights and applied to the states via the Fourteenth amendment. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an article on Hugo Black. McGarvie does not mention Black and does not mention any of the decisions of the 1940s at issue. He says not a word on Hamburger's analysis of Black. H. does not say that Black was a puppet of public opinion, he says Black was a leader of public opinion re anti-Catholicism. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

criticism section of article

OK, how about this for a first step? can we maybe just remove the christianity today paragraph? it's from what's essentially a review of hamburger's book, and yet it's described as being an independent source of hamburger's thesis. this is inaccurate and misleading, esp the word "editorialized". if we get around to agreeing on material about hamburger's thesis, perhaps we can include something from this review which goes towards the position that other people agree with hamburger to balance out material on the fact that a bunch of people do not agree with hamburger, but as it stands, i don't think that there's a place in the section for it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

no: bunch of people do not agree with hamburger is false. We have only one person (Mark McGarvie) who disagrees with Hamburger, and since he nebver mentions Hugo Black or recent cases we can't say McGarvie disagrees with Hamburger's analysis of Black. Let's make that " bunch of people" = zero or one. Rjensen (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

possibly. i haven't read enough yet to discuss that point, but will get back to it. what do you think regarding the christianity today paragraph? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity Today is important because it is a protestant evangelical magazine (started by Billy Graham) with an evangelical audience that back in the 1920s-1940s) was anti-Catholic (Hamburger emphasizes this) and now has reversed positions. It represents a religious constituency as opposed to academics. So keep it. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, we seem to be at an impasse regarding the christianity today quote, since none of the other editors involved in the discussion feel moved to comment on this. perhaps we'll give it a couple more days to see if they weigh in, and then we'll either have a clearer sense of what people thing and will be able to make an edit, or else, if they don't, i will seek WP:3O. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity Today gets its information from Hamburger, but it does 3 additional things: 1) it validates Hamburger as an important source for criticism of Black; 2) it makes an entirely new religion-based criticism (as opposed to a law-based critique). That is, the issue is not merely one for Constitutional lawyers to debate. 3) it represents a dramatic switch in positions for the Fundamentalists who in the 1920s insisted on Separation and now are in alliance with Catholics (as on abortion) and have their own Christian private schools, similar to Catholic parochial schools. So the editorial is important. Rjensen (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

i understood from your previous comments roughly that that's why you thought it was important. on the other hand, the sentence now in the article doesn't reflect any of those concerns, but merely repeats what hamburger has already said. i think that it would constitute original research and/or synthesis if you were to add material attributing that import to the christianity today article without another source that made the claims that you're making. in the absence of those claims, i think that the sentence just repeats hamburger and so should be excised. i do not actually disagree with you about the import of christianity today saying what it's saying, i just question the possibility of finding a sourceable sentence about it. if there is one, i think that the material would absolutely belong in the section, but the fact that it appears in christianity today does not speak for itself. anyway, i'm glad that we talked about this, but i'll just let it ride for a few days, as i said. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I revised the section to emphasize religious/political themes that are not in Hamburger but do pertain to Black. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't encourage criticism sections for precisely this reason: they attract cruft from WP:FRINGE editors quoting revisionist scholarship. It really ought to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You certainly have my support to remove it. I just dropped it in August September because I was getting really, really sick of talking about it. Personally I think it's barely relevant because it's so speculative and, as you say, revisionist.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not my opinion; that's a quotation from a reliable source. Do follow the link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I did. I don't think the word's being used in a particularly critical way there, but it's illuminating; the book looks quite interesting. Anyway, thanks for taking this up again. We'll see what happens.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson mixes up "revisionist" with Holocaust deniers. "revisionist" scholarship is mainstream when it comes to Jefferson. But this article is about Hugo Black and not Jefferson. The citations are to Blacks's standard biographers & famous scholars at leading law schools with books published by leading presses like Harvard University Press. Rjensen (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

When did I say anything about the Holocaust? I quoted an evaluation of this line of scholarship by a professional historian, whose field includes American anti-Catholicism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Revisionism is a neutral term. Cogliano uses it neutrally. It's a reason to think that Hamburger's views on Black aren't necessarily mainstream enough to include here. It's not a criticism of Hamburger in any way that I can see. The holocaust doesn't seem to come into it, except possibly as an obscure corollary of Godwin's law.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And when did Dreisbach, Hamburger and Chistianitty Today become "Black's standard biographers" et al? (Sorry for the delay Alf, been out of the country) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's Black's biographer Newman who tells how Black campaigned successfully for the US Senate in 1926 by giving anti-Catholic speeches at most of the KKK Klaverns in Alabama. see Newman book p 104 Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And that is, quite properly, already in the article, in sequence, as a section of its own. That's quite enough weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

More than enough...

Hugo was, as he said, an inveterate "jiner." Getting out and meeting people, he felt, was the best way for a lawyer to acquire new clients; it is conceivable that becoming acquainted with possible jurors was among the reasons he joined the Klan. He was already a member of many fraternal orders —among them the Knights of Pythias (he was State Grand Chancellor in 1921, he recruited one thousand new members for his lodge, and he served as Supreme Representative to the Supreme Lodge); Masons—the Blue Lodge and the Scottish and York Rite Masons (he joined the Zamora Temple in 1909 and became a lodge officer and, ultimately, a 33rd-degree mason); Odd Fellows; Woodmen of the World; Red men. Eagles; Shriners; Dokies; Civitan Club (founded in Birmingham in 1917; he was president of the Mother Club in 1922); Moose (which he later regretted joining, and joined only because its head came to his office and asked him; "I couldn't turn him down"); Pretorians (from which he bought insurance, "pretty cheap too." he recalled); and the American Legion (as was Josephine, also a veteran). "I made friends in all these organizations. I would have joined the B'nai B'Rith [or Knights of Columbus, changing the group to match what he felt was the inquirer's religious affiliation], if they would've let me in." Certainly he hoped to expand his circle of friends in the Klan.
     But there were other, more compelling considerations. The Klan controlled the voting machinery in practically every county in Alabama. By 1923 government in Jefferson County had become virtually a wholly owned subsidiary of the Invisible Empire. Klansmen accounted for 15,000 of Birmingham's 32,000 registered voters— - nearly half. It was simply a fact of Alabama politics that no candidate could be elected without the hooded order's support or, at the minimum, its non-opposition.
     Many years later, while relaxing between sets of tennis, a friend, Marilew Kogan, asked Black, " 'Why did you join the Klan.' You never believed in what they were doing.' I put it to him bluntly so he had to answer," she recalled. "A look of contrition came over his face and he almost appeared to be in real physical pain. He put his head down and shook it from side to side. Finally he said, 'It was a mistake. But I had to do it. I just had to.' " "I would have joined any group if it helped me get votes," he told another friend.
      The same question arose shortly before, in early 1958, while lunching with a group of law clerks. After the usual small talk about cases, one clerk suddenly asked, "Mr. Justice, why did you join the Klan?" "There was complete silence," another clerk recalled. "It was eerie. We just stared straight ahead. Those few seconds seemed like hours. Then Black laughed and drawled, "Why, son, if you wanted to be elected to the Senate in Alabama in the 1920s, you'd join the Klan too.' "•. —Newman, pg. 99,100

Maybe even more than it's due. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly; there's an argument for that. On the other hand, it must be mentioned and discussed; we have enough patriotic whitewash already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm all for taking people's word about some of the facts of their lives, but never ever ever about why they joined the Klan. Especially after they've been caught out not having admitted it before it was discovered by others.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Agreed. I'm not looking to whitewash Black. If anything the KKK section could use a minor expansion given the coverage by both Ball and Newman. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. But if we don't say it, the POV-pushers will leap to the conclusion we are like them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

KKK

I think the KKK section should talk about how it was very strong in Alabama (1920's) at the time and around the whole country to give people more an idea of why he joined it. You couldn't be elected in certain states unless you were in or endorsed by the Klan. And at that time, the Klan was mainstream and accepted in lots of states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.193.181 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

George Anastaplo, "immortalized" by Black

Black's dissent In re Anastaplo "would immortalize Anastaplo", exclaimed Justice Brennan upon reading it. It was read, by Black's own instructions, at Black's funeral service.

The new article George Anastaplo deserves reading and improvement, particularly by those with books or articles on Black. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hugo Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090513110916/http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=181 to http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=181
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131012025501/http://www.history.com/topics/hugo-black to http://www.history.com/topics/hugo-black

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Placement of KKK/Anticatholicism Discussion

Subject to further discussion, I'm going to move the section about KKK and anti-Catholicism to later in the article. It's the sort of material that usually falls under a "controversies" heading, and those headings typically follow sections discussing the person's major life achievements. His Klan participation is significant because he was a Senator and Justice, not the other way around. Nor is the section's placement entirely justified by chronology, because it jumps around throughout his career. Reading through the Talk, there seems to have been a lot of discussion about the length and substance of the Klan materials being disproportionate. I tend to agree, but that's another issue. John2510 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hugo Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513110916/http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=181 to http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=181
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c20_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812060843/http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/belknap605.htm to http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/belknap605.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hugo Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828111629/http://www.johnlilburne.com/reference/hugolblack.html to http://www.johnlilburne.com/reference/hugolblack.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402065141/http://www.funerals.org/frequently-asked-questions/51-qsimple-and-cheapq-my-father-said to http://www.funerals.org/frequently-asked-questions/51-qsimple-and-cheapq-my-father-said
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224054516/http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_080.htm to http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_080.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503010412/http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/blackh.html to http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/blackh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723165650/http://www.library.law.ua.edu/spcoll/colls.htm to http://www.library.law.ua.edu/spcoll/colls.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412084454/http://www.firstissue.net/2008/12/us-postage-stamps-1986.html to http://www.firstissue.net/2008/12/us-postage-stamps-1986.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424121024/http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/black.htm to http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/black.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213204703/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_timeline/images_associates/064.html to http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_timeline/images_associates/064.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402065141/http://www.funerals.org/frequently-asked-questions/51-qsimple-and-cheapq-my-father-said to http://www.funerals.org/frequently-asked-questions/51-qsimple-and-cheapq-my-father-said

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Black. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207171148/http://www.usps.com/news/2002/philatelic/sr02_053.htm to http://www.usps.com/news/2002/philatelic/sr02_053.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Paul Blanshard's work

I added a small line at the end of the section regarding "Anti-Catholicism" referencing Black's enthusiasm for what Blanshard wrote in his books. As one of his sons noted:[4][5]

The Ku Klux Klan and Daddy, so far as I could tell, had one thing in common. He suspected the Catholic Church. He used to read all of Paul Blanshard's books exposing the power abuse in the Catholic Church. He thought the Pope and bishops had too much power and property. He resented the fact that rental property owned by the Church was not taxed; he felt they got most of their revenue from the poor and did not return enough of it.

Progressingamerica (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Originalism

Noah Feldman has described Justice Black as one of the creators of originalism. Should thus be added to his page? 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Hugo Black

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This article (listed in 2008) has been sitting on the "articles needing possible reassessment" list for over a year, and I think there's a good case to be made that it no longer meets the criteria. The primary issue is criterion 2B, which requires inline cites for all statements likely to be challenged. This article has a full two dozen "citation needed" templates, and it appears that most of them are indeed valid. For instance, clear statements of opinion like "Black's most prominent ideological opponent on the Warren Court was John Marshall Harlan II" are completely unsourced, and there are no citations for the paragraph on Brown v. Board of Education. These are just a few examples; there are a number of additional places where sourcing is required by the good article criteria. In sum, this article does not meet the modern GA criteria. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)